Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Oct 12, 2011 3:58am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on Steve Jobs

I never fully understand the point of such articles. I give Monte a lot more credit taking these shots when the guy was alive as opposed to a week after he was gone (i just wished he wouldn't post the same material every week about it and make up quotes to go with the pictures). Steve Jobs was no angel. Stunning revelation, have you seen the new iPhone yet? The far more fascinating article would be the one about someone who was unpopular and hated in life and turned out to be the kind generous soul that no one suspected.

I seem to recall similar kind of article was published in Rolling Stone Magazine about a year after a music icon passed away in 1995. It also did not paint a pretty picture of an individual who was beloved and cherished by his fans to a level that was not very well understood by those who did not have an emotional investment. I don't think it had a great impact on his legacy.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Oct 12, 2011 6:02am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on Steve Jobs

Well, to me, the point of such articles is that journalism is the first rough draft of history, as some journalist once said (and has probably been misquoted on it every since.) Hagiography isn't very enlightening and doesn't do much for historical awareness.

That's not to say that all writing about a famous person should be a slam job if it's to have any credibility. We're all such mixes of positive and negative, and perceived so differently by so many different people, that a portrait that only depicted the dark side of a Jerry or Steve Jobs or Reagan or Lincoln or whoever would be as incomplete as one that only praised and remembered fondly.

While journalism isn't history per se, if it's a "first rough draft," then an attempt to capture the contemporary perspectives on Jobs, including the negatives, is not somehow inappropriate.

I'm actually for restraint in initial reports -- a little old-fashioned doffing of the hat and all. But after that ... well, complexity is more interesting than public relations.

Incidentally, I don't think I've seen that Rolling Stone article. (At least not lately. I'm remembering something vaguely in which ex-wives were interviewed about drug use. Maybe that was it?) But I'd rather see "warts and all" -- assuming that doesn't really mean "only the warts with a brief nod to the 'all,'" or "a closeup of the most disgusting warts, magnified ad nauseum" -- than an article (or book) that has been verbally photoshopped.

Incidentally, the reason the warts-and-all approach troubles me isn't because it might hurt those with an emotional investment in a famous person. It's because it's not real. Nobody is just warts. But in the case of Jobs, I've mainly seen him get the Princess Di treatment so far, and I think this is a well-researched and frank counterbalance.



This post was modified by AltheaRose on 2011-10-12 13:02:58

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: TOOTMO Date: Oct 12, 2011 7:49am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on Steve Jobs

"Well, to me, the point of such articles is that journalism is the first rough draft of history, as some journalist once said (and has probably been misquoted on it every since.)"

Perhaps, Althea, that is why Jackie Kennedy wanted her "raw" interview tapes and trascript, done with Arthur Schlessinger, sealed for 50 years—she wanted the "myth" to be firmly entrenched.

Here's a review of the new book, "Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy", introduction and annotations by Michael Beschloss. 400 pages. Hyperion. $60.
The book has the transcripts AND the audio of the interviews.
http://www.thesmartset.com/article/article10051101.aspx

I'm not a JackieO fan nor hater having been born male after she left the whitehouse. But, what "thoughts" I had about did not jive with what the reviewer said is revealed by this new book. I guess if I cared more about J.O., it would be interesting but, alas, I think I can a better 400 pages to read.

TOOTMO

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Oct 12, 2011 7:10am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on Steve Jobs

> I'm remembering something vaguely in which ex-wives were interviewed about drug use

Ha, I think it is axiomatic that when ex-wives are interviewed about drug use, it isn't going to be flattering.

I had a friend who worked at Apple in the eighties and knew Steve Jobs (she didn't claim to be a personal friend, but if you worked there, you knew Steve Jobs). The unflattering stories are nothing new.

I had a boss for awhile who modeled himself on Steve Jobs, or tried to, without even half Jobs's charm, let alone brains. He was a miserable SOB.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Oct 12, 2011 7:28am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on Steve Jobs

>I think it is axiomatic that when ex-wives are interviewed about drug use, it isn't going to be flattering.

Come to think of it, I've never seen anything like this: "He was great whenever he was on drugs! But, you know, when he was straight, he had this thing about dishes. He just wanted to do dishes, dishes, dishes. I mean, when he started to pick up his socks, it was bad enough. But the dishes? It was horrible!"

Yeah, Jobs sounds like the Boss from Hell We've All Had, with the exception that the usual bosses from hell are not, in fact, geniuses. Maybe being the Genius Boss from Hell, he just took the whole Hell Boss thing to the ingenious nth degree. Even down to the child minions doing his bidding in China. Maybe he was really Lex Luthor. "I have a great plot to take over the world ... let's see, something harmless ... an aaaaapple ... "

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Oct 12, 2011 8:00am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More on Steve Jobs

actually that's really funny, I think there's a country song like that. No - now that I think of it, it's from the guys' point of view ... smtg like, "You were tolerable when I was drunk/stoned all the time, now that I'm straight I can't stand all this 'honey take out the trash' stuff ..."